Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week announced a new round of peace talks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (known as Abu Mazen) accepted her invitation to Washington for the talks beginning September 2.

Clinton set a one-year deadline for the talks, amid pessimism on both sides that the bitter Israeli-Palestinian stalemate could truly be broken in that time. But you couldn’t tell that from what the parties said — all three spoke in incomprehensible diplomatic code. So here’s a POLITICO translation of what they really meant:

HILLARY CLINTON

WHAT SHE SAID:

“The President and I are encouraged by the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas and fully share their commitment to the goal of two states — Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security...”

WHAT SHE MEANT:

Listen: These talks are going to happen because we insist on it.

The Israeli settlement moratorium was about to expire, and then things really could have gotten out of hand. So we had to move quickly, and sure, we may not have worked out all the details yet. But we’ve pressured you into sitting down for the first time since President Barack Obama took office. We’ve averted a crisis, and those are small victories.

And let’s be honest: neither of you is being all that cooperative — and particularly you, Abu Mazen, with your foot-dragging and threats to drop out if somebody puts a concrete block down in the wrong place. So we’re going to lock you into a summit before either of you changes your mind.

Once you’re at the table, the dynamic changes. You’ll become more invested in making the process a success and creating a public climate in which peace is imaginable and even popular.

WHAT SHE SAID:

“I’ve invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Abbas to meet on Sept. 2 in Washington, D.C. to re-launch direct negotiations to resolve all final status issues, which we believe can be completed within one year.”

WHAT SHE MEANT:

We all know we’re not going to resolve this in a year.

But I had to throw the Palestinians a bone — they’re always going on about deadlines — and the Israelis don't want this process to just be an endless pretext for slowing their growth either.

And I know some folks think we’re crazy to even hold the talks now, and raise expectations, but there is daylight on two of the four key issues, the border lines and the security status of a Palestinian state. Maybe, just maybe, we could get a preliminary agreement on those sometime next year, and then keep working. Maybe we could actually get a deal.

WHAT SHE SAID:

“The Quartet Representative Tony Blair has also been invited to the dinner in view of his important work to help Palestinians build the institutions of their future state, an effort which must continue during the negotiations.”

But this isn’t really about Tony. This is about the second-part, institution building — putting together the building blocks of the future Palestinian state, a government, courts, cops, schools — stuff like that.

This isn’t some nice development plan for USAID. This is politics, this is grand strategy. Think of this as our Plan B: If the talks fall apart, as they probably will, I want to keep this path to peace open, and to let the Palestinians create a de facto state before they get a legal one.

Ideally, the baby state in the West Bank will make it easier to talk about peace now, because it helps the Palestinians feel like all this “two state” talk isn’t just for show.

Blair’s also a stand-in for the guy who in our fantasy world would have Abu Mazen’s job, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. He’s honest, he’s competent, he’s really getting things done and the situation on the ground in the West Bank — security, economy — is better than it’s been in memory. But he’s never going to be president — working for the World Bank, as he did, doesn’t buy you much street cred — and we don’t dare mention Fayyad, because that would infuriate Abu Mazen and drive him away from the talks.

WHAT SHE SAID:

“It is important that actions by all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it.”

WHAT SHE MEANT:

Bibi: Just don’t build any more settlements. We’re not making a demand. It’s not a precondition. C’mon.

Abu Mazen: No more threats to walk away. We’re not getting drawn into the settlement mess again. You can show you’re strong by staying at the table and actually getting something done.

Oh, and please — stop letting the crackpots name streets after terrorists!

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU

WHAT HIS OFFICE SAID

“Prime Minister Netanyahu welcomes the invitation of the United States to begin direct negotiations without preconditions.”

WHAT HE MEANT:

No preconditions? Then fire up the bulldozers.

Not all of them. Well, really, maybe not any of them. We’re not returning to the expansions of the ‘90s. But I need to be able to get up in parliament and tell my people that I stood up for Israel where Tzipi Livni – seated in the opposition – would not have.

And for the record: There’s no secret deal with Obama. Even without the talks, we can keep building in Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, and in established settlement blocs that everybody knows will be part of Israel in any final settlement. The construction moratorium — which I never liked much, and which my coalition partners liked less — is over.

We’re not going to pay for the right to talk to Palestinians. If we’re going to negotiate, it will be based on mutual benefit. If they want us to stop building, they — or their Arab friends — can make us an offer. This is how negotiations work.

And if they want to take that as an excuse to walk away, fine. That will just prove what I already suspect: If Arafat was unwilling to close a deal, Abu Mazen is just too weak to make one.

MAHMOUD ABBAS

WHAT HE SAID:

“Settlements and peace are two parallels that don’t meet. If Israel continues with the settlement construction, we will withdraw from the talks.”

WHAT HE MEANT:

Listen Hillary: You told us you had an implicit understanding with the Israelis that they wouldn’t be doing any more building that would change the strategic situation. But now some of Bibi’s key allies in his coalition are calling for just that — and don’t think we don’t follow Israeli politics as closely as anyone.

The tacit thing isn’t going to work anymore. We’re facing pressure at home, pressure from Hamas, pressure from our friends and so-called friends in the Arab world to deliver something. We need a public commitment.
We’re also worried that the Israelis could use talks to stall. We don’t want you spending another five years herding us to photo-ops while the Israelis double the number of settlers, like they did in the late 1990s.

Look, I’m in a difficult place. I don’t have Arafat’s credibility with the people and with the hardliners. So while I may want to make peace, I constantly need to show I’m tough. Help!

BARACK OBAMA

WHAT HE SAID:

WHAT HE MEANT:

You’ve noticed I haven’t publicly commented on the summit? That’s no accident. I got burned badly enough on the first round of this — back when I thought just being Barack Obama (and not George W. Bush) would be enough to calm the waters and bring the sides together. I managed to get the Israelis and the American Jews ticked off at me, but I didn’t see the Arab League rushing to my defense to put pressure on the Palestinians, either. But I’m a man who thinks presidents should do big things, so I haven’t given up on it yet. Why should Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton be the only ones to get those great handshake pictures?

But I’m a little older and a little wiser this time out. So I'm going to host a dinner and a series of bilateral talks to kick this thing off, but from there on in, I’m going to let you take the lead, Hillary. Knock yourself out.

If this thing actually gets rolling, don’t worry, Air Force One is all gassed up and ready to sweep into the region to close the deal.